Is compulsory military service immoral?

I can say that nothing brought up here will make any difference should the government decide to activate the draft. This forum cannot stop anyone from doing anything. Nothing said here changes anyone's mind on any stance they already have.

 

funny how none of the forum right wingers who claim to be Christian responded to:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ervice-immoral.499407/page-18#post-1068840633

no surprise

 

My question was simple. Why do you want to force draftees to be on a fire team that don't want to be there? If you are their commander, would you send these people out with the soldiers you know want to accomplish the mission?

These are incredibly simple questions that require very little thought. If you once again refuse to answer and deflect with this "well it doesn't matter now" bullshit, we know exactly what kind of poster you are.

 

Robert Heinlein wrote a novel title Starship Troopers where if you wish to be a citizen and be able to vote or hold any office in the government you must voluntary to serve the government and mainly in the military but where ever the government had a need for x number of years.

There was no draft of any kind however.

 

I have no problem sending draftees who have been trained into combat, because if they make it that far they have the training needed to keep them safe and the people around them. If they object so much they would rather die then do their jobs then so be it, the others around them are trained enough to protect themselves and their missions. Also if you think all draftees are sent into combat then you really don't know much about what all it takes to support a fighting force. As I have said before I have known many draftees during Vietnam who had decided to make the military a career. The draft does not affect everyone who is drafted the same way like you imply.

 

Well I take pride in saying this on behalf of myself, and other Commissioned Officers, I am very thankful you do not command a unit. Our soldiers are the only way we complete a mission. By putting more danger upon them than just the enemy, you wouldn't last a week before you'd be relieved of command. No need to further respond, you made your point clear.

 

My apologies, I didn't address your last sentence. I didn't imply ALL draftees are that way. Just a few are more than enough which is why we're a 100% volunteer military. If someone doesn't want to go to war, I'm not going to send them with my soldiers to **** up my MISSION.

"I will always place the mission first". That's the heart of the Army.

 

As predicted every post in response to mine is an accusation of what you do.

I know and acknowledged that

Yes they will. I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. However if I start a thread, I get anal about sticking to the topic. This isn't one I started but try not to be hypocritical regardless. Thanks.

Glad to clear up yours.

(sorry, back to the topic y'all)

 

As I stated earlier on your last troll post.

Troll on

 

Says the one who is trolling.

 

On a more serious note:

I don't blame you. What exactly is your typical "mission"? (if you don't mind disclosing some details)

 

That's a tough question to answer. Are you asking a deployment's overall mission or what your objectives are when deployed to aid in accomplishing the mission? I'm happy to go over the actual details of a deployment in general if need be. I just need more specific questions to help clarify.

 

Are you stationed in the Middle East?

 

Am I currently? No.

I'm actually in a holdover awaiting BOLC. I was prior enlisted.

 

Sorry I'm not familiar with that acronym, I had to look it up (now I know). So you are not engaged in any combat missions then. Correct?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Officer_Leaders_Course

 

I would not be talking to you if I were. Should I have been messaging you directly on my last deployment? Or do you want me to DM you some sweet combat pics on the next one?

Get to your point

 

Thanks, just asking.

 

Does everyone currently in the military want to be wherever they are sent and do every job they are assigned to do? Did every soldier want to go to Iraq? I suspect no, but they were trained to do their jobs and they just did their jobs regardless of how they felt about it. As I recall back during the draft nobody was just given a gun and put on the front lines, they were trained well before going into combat.

 

They are all trained well before being put into combat even draftees.

 

That negates none of the information provided to you

 

Yes, absolutely yes. Do you know how long the process is at MEPS to swear in?? If a soldier truly does not WANT to be on deployment, they are REMOVED from the line.

So answer me this, Commander, why the **** would you spend 100K to train a DRAFTEE (one) when you know some don't want to be there, when you can train a VOLUNTEER for more secured results? Yes, it costs between 70-100K JUST FOR BASIC ALONE. Let alone unit training and premobilization. You're wanting to waste millions of dollars to attempt to train people who have been forced to go to war. I have to hand it to you. The fact that you don't see the crazy behind this is very impressive.

 

Not everyone who is drafted is sent to combat. I would suspect the large majority of them are in support positions in all branches of the military.

http://history-world.org/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS...

• 25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.
• Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
• Reservists killed: 5,977
• National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.
• Total draftees (1965 - 73): 1,728,344.
• Actually served in Vietnam: 38%
• Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.
• Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.

 

You have repeatedly dodged my direct question. I suspect your age is far north of mine given your die-hard defense of the draft. Something our generation doesn't know.

If YOU were a commander (which we all know, judging by your responses and your 'sound' logic, that you are not), would you rather your fire team consist of people who wanted to be in the fight, or people that were forced to be in the fight, and are a risk of abandoning it?

For the last time, if you cannot find the guts to answer this directly without some insane deflection, do not bother replying.

 

Compulsory service can be immoral, it depends upon how the military is used.

But at this point, I support mandatory military service for everyone, men and women. Why? Because there are too many naïve people in the USA, people who have no exposure to the world and what the military is and does. These people think the military is just any job that anyone can do, they actually believe the PC crap that a "you can be anything you want to be", they think guns are magical and can take over a persons mind and make a person commit murder, and they have no idea what the world outside the USA is like.

Make everyone serve in the military, and not an office job. Put them in infantry and make them hump 100 lb ruck for a few months out in the dirt and swamp and desert, put them on a ship for 9 months (preferably a nice little frigate, make sure it hits rough seas too), put them on a carrier deck during night flight ops, and put them all through the first 5 weeks of UDT/S and don't let them quit until they have finished Hell week. Then put them in the "sandbox" and let them meet some real Muslims and insurgents (might lose a lot of draftees there, but that's the price of an education), and let them recover in the Philippines "camping" in the jungle.

Then they wont make these stupid claims about equality and guns and how everyone on the world is just like Americans.